UK Opinion Polls Changing?

"That's the reality of Saddam's Iraq," she said. "When I hear people calling for more time, I say, who is going to speak up for those victims? Who is to help the victims of Saddam's regime unless we do it?" http://politics.guardian.co.uk/forei...903809,00.html
_____________________________________________

That is a good question. Who will do it? Should we just give it more time and wait for someone else to help?

Originally posted by mkue "That's the reality of Saddam's Iraq," she said. "When I hear people calling for more time, I say, who is going to speak up for those victims? Who is to help the victims of Saddam's regime unless we do it?" http://politics.guardian.co.uk/forei...903809,00.html
_____________________________________________

That is a good question. Who will do it? Should we just give it more time and wait for someone else to help?

Good article Susy.

No Marie, apparently we should give it more time because we feel more people need to die to make it justified. And then,when that happens, the US can be blamed for letting it go on.

Once we invade Iraq, all this crap will be uncovered: the torture chambers, the mass graves, the gas chambers, etc and when that happens, France and Germany should be embarrased at themselves. I think that's why Bush wants this resolution to be voted on - to have this on record that these countries opposed this - so when all this is discovered - no one can backpedal.

Published on Saturday, March 8, 2003 by the New York Times
Sentiment Against War Is Voiced Across World
by Tim Weiner

MEXICO CITY, March 7-Politicians, editorial writers and ordinary people around the world said today they were
bracing for war after hearing President Bush warn that only days may remain before a military action in Iraq, with
or without the approval of the United Nations Security Council.

Senior figures said they were unconvinced by the latest British and American efforts to set a deadline for Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Party leader John Swinney accused the two countries of trying to "bribe and bully" the United Nations into backing military action.

And his predecessor, Banff and Buchan MP Alex Salmond, argued that war was "most certainly not in our name".

'Compelling evidence'

Delegates backed an emergency motion brought on the second and final day of the party's conference at Balloch on Loch Lomondside.

Mr Swinney insists that he has been consistent on the issue.

He said there should be no war without compelling evidence - and a UN resolution which specifies military action.

Following the latest report from chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, Britain and the US want the United Nations to give Saddam Hussein until
17 March to fully cooperate.

There can be no justification for a rush to war when the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians are at stake
John Swinney
SNP leader

However, Mr Swinney told delegates that a deadline did not make a wrong decision right.

"To any right and fair thinking person, if the inspectors are forcing Saddam to disarm we should give them the time they need to finish the job that we
have asked them to do," he said.
SNP voices opposition to war
Delegates at the Scottish National Party conference have voted unanimously to oppose war against Iraq.

Senior figures said they were unconvinced by the latest British and American efforts to set a deadline for Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Party leader John Swinney accused the two countries of trying to "bribe and bully" the United Nations into backing military action.

And his predecessor, Banff and Buchan MP Alex Salmond, argued that war was "most certainly not in our name".

'Compelling evidence'

Delegates backed an emergency motion brought on the second and final day of the party's conference at Balloch on Loch Lomondside.

Mr Swinney insists that he has been consistent on the issue.

He said there should be no war without compelling evidence - and a UN resolution which specifies military action.

Following the latest report from chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, Britain and the US want the United Nations to give Saddam Hussein until
17 March to fully cooperate.

There can be no justification for a rush to war when the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians are at stake
John Swinney
SNP leader

However, Mr Swinney told delegates that a deadline did not make a wrong decision right.

"To any right and fair thinking person, if the inspectors are forcing Saddam to disarm we should give them the time they need to finish the job that we
have asked them to do," he said.
The 10-day notification by the UK and US was designed to "drown out"
what was otherwise a rather positive assessment by the two inspectors.
Having read the report, there is undisputable progress being made and
the quote on "months" was made in a mostly positive light.
Andrew McSherry, Atlanta GA (ex pat)

It was a mistake by the US and the UK to commit so many armed forces
into the Gulf region. Now there is no way back, and of course they
cannot wait. Every day costs money. Iraq possesses only a fraction of
the weapons and the infrastructure that it had before the first Gulf War,
whatever the so-called intelligence says.
Conny, Leeds, UK

The real agenda, as Bush puts it, is
democracy in the region and freeing
the people of the yolk of tyranny.
This is a definitive hour in the
making of contemporary history.
Zahid Hamid, Bishop's Stortford

As long as Iraq is cooperating, the inspectors should be given time,
whatever it takes. There should not be any deadlines imposed by
individual nations. The world must have one and only one focus and that
is to fight the people and states who are actively promoting terrorism
under one garb or other.
Devendra Tripathi, Pune, India

If the USA and UK attack Iraq without UN backing, they should get
punished by removing their permanent seats on the Security Council as
well as their veto rights.
Joanne Andre, New York, USA

Mar 8, '03

This happened back in 1995. The soldier in question was from Conroe Texas, just up the road from us here in Houston. This is and should be every Americans opinion about the UN as far as I am concerned. To me the final line says it all.
---------------------------
U.S. Soldier Refuses to Submit to U.N. Authority

U.S. Army Specialist Michael New was scheduled to join a United Nations "peacekeeping" force in Bosnia early this month, but Specialist New decided to risk the possibility of court martial, dishonorable discharge, and a prison term rather than wear the UN insignia on his uniform.
When Michael New joined the U.S. Army and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, no mention was made of the United Nations. No one said anything about swearing allegiance to a would-be world government or being subject to service under its alien command. That's why Michael New balked when he was ordered to wear the UN insignia. Up to that point, he had been a typical American soldier, subject to the command of American military officers and possessed of all the rights of an American citizen -- and that's what he wanted to remain.

Specialist New demanded to know how a UN emblem on his uniform would affect his status as a soldier in the U.S. Army. Would he still be in the service of the United States, or would he be considered to be in the service of the United Nations instead? If taken prisoner during the UN's "peacekeeping mission," would he be treated as an American POW or as a UN hostage? Michael New's superiors refused to answer those crucially important questions.

The Army was in "a difficult position," remarks Dennis Cuddy, former professor of U.S. history at the University of North Carolina, and the author of a popular pamphlet on the New World Order. If the UN insignia on his uniform would have no effect on Michael New's status as an American soldier, then why was it so important for him to wear it? If the insignia merely identifies a UN operation, then why didn't American soldiers serving in Korea wear UN emblems on their uniforms?

Taking a pass on those prickly posers, the Army argued that President Clinton as commander-in-chief had lawfully ordered American soldiers to wear the UN insignia, and that's the end of that. The alleged lawfulness of the order presumably derives from a classified Presidential Directive of May 3, 1994, in which Clinton asserted his authority "to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander." Cuddy says that "one reason New has asked for an explanation of how his status would change if he wore UN insignias is to determine if this order actually is lawful." Cuddy contends that it is unconstitutional, and that Army Specialist Michael New is "correct to refuse to wear UN insignia over his American uniform."

Why all the fuss about a silly little emblem? Dennis Cuddy argues that obscuring the national identities of troops participating in a UN peacekeeping mission and forcing them all to sport UN insignia indicates "a change of command or authority." Once the United Nations has troops that it can truly call its own, it will have become what its founders wanted it to be -- "a de facto world government."
------------------------------------------------------

I say hell...pull out of the UN NOW.

Dave

Mar 8, '03

The first reason for its existence listed in the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations is "to save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to
mankind."

"To any right and fair thinking person, if the inspectors are forcing Saddam to disarm we should give them the time they need to finish the job that we
have asked them to do," he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2831733.stm
__________________________________________
Resolution 1441 called for him to disarm back in Nov 2002, after three years of no inspections and 12 years of uncooperative inspections. I don't think more time is the answer.

For the Bush administration, however, it is clear that what Mr
Blix has to say carries less and less weight. His reasoned,
fact-based approach was not reciprocated in Colin Powell's
response. The US secretary of state was at pains to pick holes,
emphasising the negative, decrying Iraq's "grudging" behaviour
and repeating earlier claims of Iraqi cheating. Ignoring evidence
of present-day com pliance, he again resorted to the history of
past Iraqi non-cooperation. Mr Powell is entitled to feel
dissatisfied about Iraqi foot-dragging and time-wasting. It is
certainly true that Iraq can and should do more, faster. But Mr
Powell, if he were as objective as Mr Blix and not politically
committed to war, would surely also admit that this report, like
its predecessors, provides no basis or justification for a resort to
military force at this time.

Britain's bid to broker a compromise that delays war for a week
and salvages the fabled "second resolution" is now a truly
desperate business. On one side stands an obsessive,
unyielding George Bush, insisting the US needs nobody's
"permission" to attack whoever it pleases and counting on
Britain's loyal support. On the other side stands almost the
entire United Nations, including nearly all our closest allies.
Exactly how Tony Blair and the hapless Jack Straw ever got into
this ridiculous, damaging and dangerous position will intrigue
historians for years to come. Exactly how they get out of it - and
whether they can at all - we will know in the next few climactic
days.